8 ms·

Well put. In live in Denver, high-speed rail doesn't mean much to me. Plane travel is simply faster for almost any trip I'd want to make.

by enjo 12y ago

alwaysdoit 12y ago
Planes are going to become very expensive in the next 30-40 years, unless we come up with a cheap alternative to the energy density of petroleum. One advantage of trains is that they don't have to carry their fuel.
melling 12y ago
I live in the middle of Nebraska. I don't need it either. I live in the middle of Nevada. I don't need it either. I live in the middle of North Dakota . I don't need it either. I'm just messing with you. Do people ever stop and think before adding noise to the conversation? You seriously don't have a point.
mahyarm 12y ago
It's for medium range trips, where avoiding all the airport & airplane BS will make it a shorter trip. For example, SF to LA in 2.5hrs / 350 miles
- ac29 12y ago
  As someone who has flown from northern california to southern california a number of times, it in no way takes 2.5+ hours, including all of the "airport & airplane BS". Proposed HSR times from SF->LA are about 2.5 hours. If there is no security and you are comfortable arriving a few minutes before the train leaves, thats that. Realistically, I'd think you'd need to arrive 15 mins ahead of time or more. Flights from SF->LA take about an hour. In my experience 30-40 minutes is plenty of time for "airport BS", but even if you give it an hour, you're at 2 hours, not over 2.5. I am all for HSR, but saying that it is faster than air travel is a baseless argument.
  - bydo 12y ago
    That's all well and good, if you live in one airport and are traveling to another one. Realistically, it's going to take you another hour or two just getting from your point of departure to the first airport, and from the second to your actual destination. Rail tends to have stations actually in the actual cities, which is an awful lot more convenient.
    - cafard 12y ago
      Yes and no. It is a very few more minutes for me to get from work to the airport than to the train station. It takes less time for me to drive from home to the airport than to drive to the train station.
    - smackfu 12y ago
      If you live in the city or are going to the city, it's more convenient. If you live in the suburbs, or are visiting someone in the suburbs, maybe not so much.

Well put. In live in Denver, high-speed rail doesn't mean much to me. Plane travel is simply faster for almost any trip I'd want to make.

by enjo 12y ago

Well put. In live in Denver, high-speed rail doesn't mean much to me. Plane travel is simply faster for almost any trip I'd want to make.

alwaysdoit 12y ago

Planes are going to become very expensive in the next 30-40 years, unless we come up with a cheap alternative to the energy density of petroleum. One advantage of trains is that they don't have to carry their fuel.

melling 12y ago

I live in the middle of Nebraska. I don't need it either. I live in the middle of Nevada. I don't need it either. I live in the middle of North Dakota . I don't need it either. I'm just messing with you. Do people ever stop and think before adding noise to the conversation? You seriously don't have a point.

mahyarm 12y ago

It's for medium range trips, where avoiding all the airport & airplane BS will make it a shorter trip. For example, SF to LA in 2.5hrs / 350 miles

ac29 12y ago
As someone who has flown from northern california to southern california a number of times, it in no way takes 2.5+ hours, including all of the "airport & airplane BS". Proposed HSR times from SF->LA are about 2.5 hours. If there is no security and you are comfortable arriving a few minutes before the train leaves, thats that. Realistically, I'd think you'd need to arrive 15 mins ahead of time or more. Flights from SF->LA take about an hour. In my experience 30-40 minutes is plenty of time for "airport BS", but even if you give it an hour, you're at 2 hours, not over 2.5. I am all for HSR, but saying that it is faster than air travel is a baseless argument.
- bydo 12y ago
  That's all well and good, if you live in one airport and are traveling to another one. Realistically, it's going to take you another hour or two just getting from your point of departure to the first airport, and from the second to your actual destination. Rail tends to have stations actually in the actual cities, which is an awful lot more convenient.
  - cafard 12y ago
    Yes and no. It is a very few more minutes for me to get from work to the airport than to the train station. It takes less time for me to drive from home to the airport than to drive to the train station.
  - smackfu 12y ago
    If you live in the city or are going to the city, it's more convenient. If you live in the suburbs, or are visiting someone in the suburbs, maybe not so much.